>I dont appreciate or agree with much of the
>analysis...however I thought it did a pretty good job
>of proving the obvious, that IAC is a WWP
>frontgroup..and bringing up certain facts (such as how
>at one moment the WWP denounces Hussein and in another
>supports him), as well as the Hungary issue, the
>support of Kim Il Sung and all the other butchers the
>WWP supports.
Yeah, the facts Coogan mobilizes are pretty amazing - the shift on Hussein (and why do they spell it Hussayn?) was stunning. As was the writing out of WWP's Trot history.
><<It seems marred by a serious
>> case of
>> anti-Communism>>
>
>I dont see why you say that...it is antistalinist for
>sure. The truth is the truth (at least
>sometimes...even in a pomo world).
>The person writing (Coogan) seems to be some kind of
>social
>democrat (despite his past, which I believe was as one
>of the early Left/Laroucheite/Luxemburgers). Why does
>the same fact suddenly become anticommunist when
>uttered by someone who does not meet our definition of
>"Left wing".
I'm all for calling them as I see them, and that includes blasting the USSR, the PRC, Cuba, or anyone. What I was referring to was the general political thinking underlying the piece, like the stuff I mentioned in my response to Michael Pugliese - that there's something weird about calling for an end to NATO, or in criticizing Israel, etc. I don't have my copy here at the office, so I can't quote what I mean. But there's quite an anti-left (even very broadly defined) tone to the thing. Still, WWP is a pretty weird crowd.
Lou Paulsen, you still here?
Doug